What is your political philosophy?

[jammies]

Obviously many here shout out their ideologies for all to see, however, I thought it would be interesting anyway to get some specifics on what people feel are their core political values - not in the sense of "I vote Liberal!" or "I'm slightly more fascist than Franco!", but rather more in the sense of what principles are most important to you.

For example, "supporting an unfettered free market" is a principle, or "separation of church and state", or even "traditional Judeo-Christian values in law and government". Please, please, PLEASE do not use the tired and almost useless "left" or "right" designators, as they are not meaningful but rather are intended to obscure meaning.

I'll start:

DEMOCRACY: My first principle is that there is only one legitimate type of government, and that is democratic. Whether parliamentary or in the US style. Its very imperfection, mutability and inefficiency are its strengths - people are irrational, imperfect beings and their governments should reflect that.

DECENTRALIZATION: I prefer a federal model like that in Canada, where the regions have significant power - I'd actually prefer it even more decentralized, like the USA used to be before the Civil War, but it still remains far preferable to the French or current US system where the national government arrogates most power to itself. Democracies work better if they are uncoupled from huge national bureaucracies that take little account of the dynamics of large populations of dissimilar people.

MIXED ECONOMY: There are certain tasks that a government can perform better than the free market. Efficiency, the bugaboo of the rabid free market types, is not always the overriding factor in economics. I always use the example of the old New York City fire control system - it used to be you'd hire private companies to put out fires, but after a bunch of uninsured buildings burnt down and people got killed, along with the companies sometimes having inadequate equipment, or fighting each other in turf wars while citizens fried, it became clear that the municipal government running the fire departments was a far better idea. Of course, the businesses involved claimed that the free market was the solution to all problems, and that government would make it worse, but as it happens, these champions of capitalism were dead wrong.

RULE OF LAW, and CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: It might seem odd to put these together, but I think that both have a place in my favorite political system, democracy. On the one hand, the law must apply to all, high and low, rich and poor, without favour, for society to function with some degree of justice. On the other hand, principled disobedience of the law is sometimes necessary when the law itself is unjust, such as in the civil rights campaign of the 50's and 60's in the USA.

Anyway, those are my big 4 (or 5). For reference's sakes, I usually vote PC or Green party in elections, although none of the parties really excite my admiration. If I was an American, I would have great difficulty as neither of the big two parties appeals to me at all, although I must say haven't seen a good Republican president since Eisenhower - which is sad considering I didn't see him, either, as I wasn't born yet :)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Good idea for a thread!

Most people around here know where I stand on a lot of issues, but I agree that it's worthwhile to talk about the principles that underlie them.

1. I believe that moral truth comes from the individual, not from institutions. This means that the role of government in moral issues is to preserve and protect our ability to choose our own ethical paths. What I in essence mean is that government itself is and should be morally neutral. The same holds true for corporations and other kinds of institutions. Institutions (like churches) that seek to replace the moral judgement of the individual with their own are in my view deleterious social forces because they interfere with the individual's ability to make moral conclusions of their own.

2. The role of government is to build and foster a strong and prosperous society in which opportunity is equal, though results are not. I don't mind paying taxes, as long as government recalls its mission which is to pool the resources of people in order to provide the infrastructure of modern life, plus education and health care for all. To me the ideal government would actually be relatively small, because it would attempt relatively few things: sustaining the infrastructure of the community, providing a small number of efficient, universal entitlement programs and providing for the protection of our society at home and abroad.

3. A wealthy society cannot make every member a wealthy person--but by the same token, there is no excuse for a modern society to abandon its members to homelessness and sickness.

4. Laws should be few, enforceable and should have a clear rationale: that is to say that laws should exist in order to protect us or to foster a greater collective, not to impose morality on the individual (see number 1). For me, ethics always trumps law: if asked to choose between two courses of action, one of which is clearly unethical but also legal, and the other of which is ethical but illegal--I'll choose the ethical course every time.

5. I'll add civil disobedience too--which is something that I wish I lived by more. Many of the ideas above are very influenced by Thoreaud, and I think he was right in suggesting that it is the duty of every citizen to work each day in order to create a government more in keeping with his principles. This is the true problem with partisan politics in my view--because it subverts the democratic process into a horse race in which the drama of power is reduced to the status of a sports match, with boosters rather than true partisans. A true partisan bases his or her beliefs on principles, not parties--which means they won't and shouldn't hesitate to abandon the party when it deviates from those principles. In other words--rule 1 above applies equally to political parties, and blind loyalty to a single one is foolish for the average voter. Unfortunately, party systems also frequently force voters to make a devil's bargain between two choices that they don't like very much--and though it's a necessary evil it's one that comes at a cost: that many people treat politics as a game instead of as what it is--the social conversation about the future of the collective.

[SportsJunky]

I believe that children are our future...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I believe that children are our future...

Not me. I can't stand those little blighters. Screw 'Em. :mad:

[Clarkey]

Fiscal Conservative, lower taxes less government intervention. Social Libertarian, let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impose negative externalities on others. I think a social safety net is necessary, as long as it's not too comfortable.

[Coach]

I guess Im more the the liberal side. I definitely believe in separation of church and state. The thing that confuses me about this and its role in the American government is that I thought the idea of mixing them went out the window a long time ago. I also beleive that any necessary service should be government supplied and regulated (ie. Health care, education, car insurance)

[onetwo_threefour]

I largely agree with the principles expressed by IFF and Jammies, with some caveats.

Democracy is subvertible, as are other systems of government but a problem with democracy as we practice it, is that the power of many is concentrated in smaller and smaller circles of power. If you get the wrong person in place at the wrong time, they can do just as much damage as a dictator. For that reason, I think the Canadian system suffers by having no recall mechanisms. However, historically, this hasn't been a 'real' problem in Canada, (other than, say, Duplessis) as even when governments have reserved things like the notwithstandng clause to themselves, they have been extremely hesitant to employ them.

But that brings up a principle no one has mentioned yet, that I believe to be critical. Relating to the Rule of Law directly, I believe the principle of Judicial Independence is absolutely crucial to good governance. I beleive the Canadian system is superior to the American in this area.

With respect to IFF's comments about individual ethics, I think it's easy to take that too far. The government has to take some role in morality or people with different ethical value systems will end up at each other's throats if there is no official arbiter of whose ethics trump. A good example is sharia law. While it's easy to say that those that wish to invoke that type of thing in their own lives should be able to do so, there will always be problems in practice with that when people believe that there is some moral repugnancy to that system. I think that the government does need to impose a certain moral code, and that that code should be democratically determined, with the understanding that the judiciary is the check on excesses that go beyond the constitutional mandate of government.

Oh, and I especially agree with jammies' comments regarding mixed Economies and efficiency. I truly believe that issues such as health care and education cannot be sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. There is a higher 'caring' principle that trumps efficiency in those types of issues.

I usually vote NDP, not because I think they will ever form government, but because the dollars they get allow them to continue acting as a socialist conscience for Canada. They keep issues alive that I think need to be addressed and don't allow the public to get sucked into an American-style system of thinking that there are only two national alternatives, that really barely differ from each other anyway.

[peter12]

Strict libertarian. The individual is the be all and end all for morality within a society. To that end, individuals should be able to pursue their own ends, free from government control, this applies both to the economic and social spheres.

Markets are the best way of doing almost anything. Certainly they require a legal framework enforced by government. Governments are good at doing things in regard to protecting the lives of their citizens. Jammies' example is a false one, in my opinion. The privatization or borroughization of fire departments occurred at an early stage in the development of capitalism, it now seems obvious that emergency services should be centralized.

Proponents of government intervention often operate under the assumption that government is benevolent and capable of making better decisions than individuals operating in a market. This is false. Governments have flawed incentives, due to the need for re-election and the influence of anti-democratic lobbyists. Often governments intervene at the behest of these factors instead of the individuals living within the society. A good example is the supply managements of poultry and dairy products in Canada. This system wastes a huge amount of poultry and milk that the market would be able to sell.

In social matters, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt me. Some measures of indirect harm must be further examined and explored to develop the framework even further. Such as, the indirect harm caused by polluting companies.

[CaramonLS]

In social matters, do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt me. Some measures of indirect harm must be further examined and explored to develop the framework even further. Such as, the indirect harm caused by polluting companies.

How about certain drugs which do cause social problems. I.E. Crystal Meth?

[badnarik]

How about certain drugs which do cause social problems. I.E. Crystal Meth?

The medicine is worse than the disease.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

With respect to IFF's comments about individual ethics, I think it's easy to take that too far. The government has to take some role in morality or people with different ethical value systems will end up at each other's throats if there is no official arbiter of whose ethics trump. A good example is sharia law. While it's easy to say that those that wish to invoke that type of thing in their own lives should be able to do so, there will always be problems in practice with that when people believe that there is some moral repugnancy to that system. I think that the government does need to impose a certain moral code, and that that code should be democratically determined, with the understanding that the judiciary is the check on excesses that go beyond the constitutional mandate of government.



I think you make a very fair point. One danger in a radical individualism is the possibility of relativism, and I guess I take it as a matter of faith that though we may differ on private issues that there really is such a thing as a gold standard against which ethical standards may be compared. But obviously I also realize that there's no reason to believe that other than starry-eyed optimism and a faith in the basic goodness of humanity.

However, I'd actually say that sharia law is the perfect example of individuals failing to exercise their own moral judgement, and instead allowing that judgement to be performed instead by an institution.

[Azure]

Really limited role of the government. More power to the states/provinces.

Strongly fiscally conservative, social libertarian.

Power to the individual. I realize that certain things need to be run by the government, yet in THOSE cases I would prefer to have it run by the state government.

Low taxes....let the people drive the economy by putting the money back into their hands. A flat-tax rate would be preferable. 10-15% across the board.

Socially.....people can do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Freedom of speech is essential. As is freedom of religion.

Oh, and limited military involvement around the world. I'm an isolationist. So shoot me.

[Weiser Wonder]

I'm a strong social libertarian. I am a strong supporter of privacy and tolerance for differences. I am strong backer of gay rights, feminism and all that sort of stuff (sorry a bit hungover, don't think I have eloquence in me at the moment).

I believe in a mixed economy where the state runs things like healthcare, education, roads, emergency services etc. The essentials where a market would ignore the poor and the unfortunate. I believe the state should also regulate industry pretty heavily in order to protect the health and welfare of its citizens (ie pollution regulations, food industry regulations.) The state should also have a hand in the media and in backing the arts. But I believe in entrepreneurship and the market to be key to maintaining and enhancing our current economy. I think arguing for anything other that a mixed economy is idealistic and lacking a base in reality.

Overall, I'm a liberal Canadian and a wackjob commie American. ;)

[llama64]

I'm pretty simple.

Mixing capitalism with morality is very, very wrong.

As such, I believe that the Government should exist to provide society with vital services that the private sector cannot possibly deliver with any sort of morality. These include education, healthcare, insurance, emergency services, national defense, foreign policy/trade negotiation, civil law enforcement, transportation systems and environmental protection.

I believe that corporations must be held accountable to the society in which they are doing business in. At the same time, they must be allowed to pursue their interests to the fullest of their potential within the confines of defined limits (environmental, labor, safety, etc).

I also believe that individuals should need to prove themselves able to accept the responsibility of certain privileges. Namely, the right to vote. Service to society for a defined term would be one way of enacting this. No one should be able to vote without proving themselves worthy. That said, the other rights and freedoms must be protected for all members of society.

I'm pretty sure I'm something of a socialist-fascist with fiscal conservative leanings.

[Hack&Lube]

I am libertarian.

Society: Highly Liberal
Economics: Conservative
Military and International Relations Doctrine: Stucturalist with other free, democratic, liberal nations but Realist against those who are not

[missdpuck]

Just watched "The Filth and the Fury" for the millionth time. I still say Johnny Rotten for President!!!! Seriously I've been rethinking lots of things over the past few weeks and say I'm an independent but specifically what does that mean? I'm not religious per se, but I do think,for example, life begins at conception. That would put me with the conservatives. But unlike the "bootstrap" conservatives I don't believe that anyone who works hard, starts his/her own business,etc. can become rich or even comfortable. I'm okay,but I see so many people who aren 't, and I do see others getting rich off of the hard labor of those people. I think we should have some kind of national health care,but there's so much propaganda from both sides about that that I don't know how it could work in the US. We can't even get a decent dental plan for our huge postal workforce. I have a hard time understanding how someone can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal when it sure seems like the Almighty Dollar (or whatever currency is the strongest at any given moment) rules the world. In the Filth and the Fury I see the economic conditions in England from the late 60s through the 70s and believe that it could happen here. Well at least maybe we'll get some sort of music/fashion revolution out of it.

[OBCT]

Fiscal Conservative, lower taxes less government intervention. Social Libertarian, let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impose negative externalities on others. I think a social safety net is necessary, as long as it's not too comfortable.

In a nutshell, that describes my philosophy as well.

[rubecube]

I believe that children are our future...

You would, Uncle Chester. Aeneas told me he's hiding your transcripts if you don't get out of his basement soon.

[Montana Moe]

I'm with Clarkey and OBCT. There seem to be a lot of folks that claim to be socially liberal/libertarian and fiscally conservative. Until we get rid of the two party system in the U.S. I don't think we'll ever be happy.

[Weiser Wonder]

I don't understand what gives you guys the idea that a less regulated market is the way to go. The middle class in the United States hasn't seen an increase in their standard of living in god knows when. With the trickle-down economics of the Bush admin the rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have struggled to maintain their current standard of living.

[Weiser Wonder]

I also believe that individuals should need to prove themselves able to accept the responsibility of certain privileges. Namely, the right to vote. Service to society for a defined term would be one way of enacting this. No one should be able to vote without proving themselves worthy. That said, the other rights and freedoms must be protected for all members of society.

I'd like you to explain how this would work in society without alienating the unprivileged and removing their right to vote. The notion of letting only "smart people" or "worthy citizens" vote sounds nice when looked on from an uncritical eye. However, when scrutinized it is obvious what a flawed system that is. All your system would do is disenfranchise the most unfortunate and wores off members of society, creating a government that isn't responsible to the citizens that really need help.

[llama64]

I'd like you to explain how this would work in society without alienating the unprivileged and removing their right to vote. The notion of letting only "smart people" or "worthy citizens" vote sounds nice when looked on from an uncritical eye. However, when scrutinized it is obvious what a flawed system that is. All your system would do is disenfranchise the most unfortunate and wores off members of society, creating a government that isn't responsible to the citizens that really need help.

That's the point actually. Those who want to make change, must first prove that they are worthy of the responsibility. The path to gain the franchise must be kept open to all who want to seek it. All other rights and freedoms are guarded and protected by the government who is answerable to all factions of society, but only those who have given a chunk of their life in service may participate directly in government.

To be honest, I am describing a philosophy which is an ideal. The realistic implementation of such a system would require such a dramatic overhaul of our social values that I personally think it's impossible to enact.

I don't have faith in the blind masses to properly govern our society. I also have an equal distaste towards trusting it to the "elite". Rather, I'm seeking some sort of compromise between the two.

[Azure]

I don't understand what gives you guys the idea that a less regulated market is the way to go. The middle class in the United States hasn't seen an increase in their standard of living in god knows when. With the trickle-down economics of the Bush admin the rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have struggled to maintain their current standard of living.

Only because the tax cuts were specifically made to the middle class.

[jammies]

Some interesting viewpoints, I'm actually surprised that there doesn't seem to be anyone who is willing to buck the trend and advocate more social control.

[Cube Inmate]

There are too many gray areas for me to be able to espouse a definite philosophy...I'm often debating various positions even with myself! For example, I can easily see both sides of the "freedom vs. prohibition" debates relating to drugs, smoking, polygamy...whatever! However, there are a couple of principles of which I'm certain:

1) People are idiots!
2) The larger the group, the worse the group-think gets.

Now, that's not to say that YOU are necessarily an idiot...I'm referring to the fact that humans operating as a group--a "society"--are collectively stupid, panicky animals. Now that I think about it, I believe it was Tommy Lee Jones in "Men In Black" who first alerted me to this fact. Given the fact that our governance is based entirely on the ebbs an flows of public opinion, whch are continuously being affected by an overload of incomplete and incorrect information, I really have no faith in democracy as we now define it. So, my political philosophy is "look out for #1," as much as possible. In general, that involves voting for the 4-year dictatorship that will screw me over as little as possible.

At this point, I seem to believe that the balance has tipped too far in the direction of government intervention. The size of government should be vastly reduced before considering the introduction of any *new* bureaucracy, regulation, etc. Give me a political party that campaigns on that premise alone, and I'll have found an ideological home.

The modern trend that scares me the most is that trend towards a more "global" government, epitomized by the European Union, the United Nations, and things like the global-warming "Kyoto Kult." Since our governance is already dysfunctional enough with only 33 million Canadians with differing views, imagine how dysfunctional it becomes when we start being governed by a "democracy" of billions, most of whom have vastly different values than I (or you, or any individual) have.

Be afraid! If things don't change soon, global government is where we'll end up, and that's good only for the elite few who end up being on the "inside" of such a government.

[Flame Of Liberty]

AnarchoCapitalist, anti-state, anti-democracy, pro-market (includes law creation too).

[mykalberta]

Overall philosophy - I believe in personal responsibility. Everyone is responsible for his or her own actions and has no one to blame but themselves.

Economics - risk big win big is what drives the economy - the middle class is simply along for the ride.

Socially - do what you want, just dont tell me about it or make me pay for it.

[missdpuck]

I don't understand what gives you guys the idea that a less regulated market is the way to go. The middle class in the United States hasn't seen an increase in their standard of living in god knows when. With the trickle-down economics of the Bush admin the rich have gotten richer and the middle class and poor have struggled to maintain their current standard of living.
We can all relate to,say, the price of hockey tickets. We're told the market determines the price. So what do we do to get lower prices? A boycott? They know we're addicts and "they" have got us. "They" set the price and then suck us into paying it. I believe that works with lots of things. Notice I don't know who "they" are......:bag: